This writer's style is equally annoying as is Rand's, except that Rand at least has a nearly bulletproof sense of logic and reason at the end of it all, whereas this particular kermit displays only a propensity for immaturity, hyperbole and offensive language that he wields like a mighty (anemic) "sword."

No. It is neither Rand nor Rand's objective philosophy that is to blame for market conditions in any way, shape or form. Not now, not ever. If you really want the villain, look no further than industrial NGOs, organized crime and outfits like the Federal Reserve. It is true that Rand was AGAINST monopolies. Without governmental manipulation and collusion (see: organized crime), you do not have monopolies.

There are many reasons to attack Rand, not least being the peculiar torturousness of her writing. But for what's going on now? The financial sector has been a dependent of government risk absorption since before the great depression. FRA, FDIC, and many many bailouts. Is it really intellectually credible to attack free people - and nominally free markets - for taking on risk and acting on greed when these have become the virtues of the state? Was not the reflation of 03-07 - much like our current reflation - encouraged at all levels of government?

Attacking Rand for deregulation, which has never been anything but a vehicle for cronyism, misses the point entirely. Collusion between government and business was her largest whipping boy. Pardon the term. I'd suggest you buck up, endure the prose, and read Atlas Shrugged again. Lest your criticisms fall awry.